Most Confusing Books to Understand

by JH 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  blondie

  It is loaded with irrelevant history (like may dad is fond of saying: "If you can't dazzle 'em with experience, baffle 'em with bullsh1t."). But I particularly enjoy finding the deceptive parts where they (Freddie Franz I believe) state some connection to prophecy - but he states it loosely, and the reader is supposed to make the inferrence.

  Hey, buster. Your dad and I think alike and half my family. As we studied this book the first time (yes, we studied it twice), I looked over and saw that my mother had written BS next to a paragraph. But to question or disagree openly was a one way trip out of the "organization."

  The WTS/FDS infers a lot today. Whenever they use Matthew 24:45 there is no explanation of HOW they fit this scripture. It is inferred.

  Blondie
• 

  gumby

  "Let God be True.......was a doo-zy.

  Basically anything Freddie wrote was out in left field and deep. That's rather selfish isn't it? Knowing the types of people that would be reading it, he made no attempt to simplify anything. Rather he felt elation that he was above others with his deep garbage.....then expected those who read it to understand it.

  Edited by - Gumby on 20 January 2003 10:3:22
• 

  Mum

  I concur with those who voted for the "Babylon" book.

  Most books by William Faulkner are hard to read, too. But that's another topic, on another forum.
• 

  RubaDub

  I vote (not in the political sense to avoid stumbling anyone) for the Babylon book also. I was a child at the time and remember studying it at least twice. It had a separate question book as I recall. It was indeed confusing. This means this, this means that, etc. And we thought this meant that, but after they blew a horn at the convention we know it means this ... and on.... and on ... and on.
• 

  Mac

  Yeppers, the Babylon book was "deep" all right. You had to wear boots to wade through that one!!!!!!!!

  mac, of the antitypical something or other class
• 

  xjw_b12

  I am also going to vote for the Babylon the Great book

  In fact if I remember correctly, the book was so hard to understand that even the writers were confused.

  So confused they forgot to write the questions, with the book, and the questions had to be printed in a seperate booklet.

  Anyone remember that ?
• 

  William Penwell

  Most of Freddie Franz prophetic books, which were confusing as hell. Freddie must have been on good drugs, as he was the only one that understood them. Books like "The Nations Shall Know that I am Jehovah -How?" and "Paradise Restored to Mankind - By Theocracy!". Does the WT still quote from these books? I don't think they do but maybe someone else can enlighten us on this.

  Will
• 

  Scully

  xjw_b12 writes:

  So confused they forgot to write the questions, with the book, and the questions had to be printed in a seperate booklet.

  If that's the case then you'd have to count the little green book "Is this Life all there is?" too, which came out with a pamphlet of study questions after its publication, in order to cover the book properly in the book study. LOL

  Revelation Climax is rather confusing as well - I wondered how many people who were offered that book in service thought it had something to do with sex. And so is the Creation book, now that I have learned how to carry on research for scientific purposes.

  Love, Scully
• 

  Buster

  Just last night I was reading the Babylon book (looking for reasoning and logic can get pretty tough). It is amazing how they got from Nebuchadezzar's (sp? who cares) tree and the seven times all the way to a greater fullfilment 2520 years later (I can only deduce that Jehovah is some greater Nebuchadezzar).

  It is so laden with weak implications that it could not have been written in good faith. My wife loved the paragragh that explained how they decided to use the 360-day year for a 'time' and a day for a year - clutter it up with lunar year this, and solar year that, and throw it all away and decide on a prophetic year. A person couldn't write that crap without knowing he was making it all up - (unless he claimed to be inspired and he wouldn't need to understand it - even himself)
• 

  William Penwell

  Buster,

  I could never understand where the WT could dig out of some old book a bunch of insignificant chronology and twist it to fulfill their own prophecies. Most of what they were saying 30 years ago have conveniently since being forgotten.

  Will

  Edited by - William Penwell on 20 January 2003 14:43:48